Redstate

Darn you Mark Halperin!

All around.  Lutting, Roberts, Garza and  Clements are all good choices in my book.  Granted I haven't done too much research at this point.

Read a Clancy novel sometime.

And my final prediction, which supersedes my many previous incorrect predictions, turns out to be on spot.

Just the other day I submitted a comment on here entitled, "It'll be Luttig and Garza."  With this post, I opined that Luttig will replace Rehnquist as CJ and Garza will take O'Connor's position.  I further stated that Gonzales will probably be held for a later retirement.  Am I reading Rove's mind?  Or is Rove reading Red State?  Hmm...

there are seruious issues with Gonzales and recusal I find it impossible to believe that any member of the Bush inner circle could be as liberal as Justice Souter. That fear strikes me as way, way, way overblown.

"Am I reading Rove's mind?  Or is Rove reading Red State?  Hmm..."

What if you are Karl Rove and don't even know it.....

The Dems will easily cave on a Rehnquist replacement, figuring that whoever is selected will vote in pretty much the same way.  Should O'Connor retire, however, I think that the DEMS (and some members of the Gang of 14) will be H-*-L-L BENT on a fight.

I also agree that the Pres. would like to place Gonzalez on the SC, considering their history.  (Wasn't that part of the MSM's discussion about  why he was being moved to Justice?  He already had legal experience from the TX SC and executive experience from the WH dealing with a broad range of issues.)  Of course, that TX record does suggest some similarities with a Souter-like view, and would never be taken quietly by the base.

Question re:  Garza.  Any implications secondary to GHWB's nomination of him to the 5th Circuit?

That said, Garza is a much better option.

Best option: Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice, Garza to fill the vacated associate justice seat.  Make the Dems vote against the first African-American Chief Justice and the first Hispanic Justice in one fell swoop.

But how likely is it that O'Connor would give this administration any forewarning about here retirement?  Certainly Rehnquist would but I'm curious about O'Connor.

Or I'd at least drive a nicer car.  Lousy Pinto.

This is far too complicated a scenario to actually play out as you detail.

First checkpoint, July 5.  We'll see.

Back in 2000, the scoop was that O'Connor wanted to make sure a Republican president replaced her.  She may not be all that conservative, but she probably trusts the GOP more.

It's not that Gonzales is a "liberal" - but he is not a particularly good "conservative" either.  THE issue for the base - Roe v. Wade - is not likely to be overturned by Gonzales - he didn't even uphold Texas's parental notification law.

Second, he's mushy on affirmative action, another legal issue that sticks in the craw of the base.

Gonzales would only be "acceptable" to the base if he were the third nominee, after two solid conservatives, and only if he replaced a lefty like Ginsburg, Stevens, or Breyer.

That said, I would rather see Bush go with a conservative Senator than Gonzales.  How do Dems rant and rave about how "extremist" one of their own colleagues is?  Especially if it is someone like Crapo, how basically got a pass from Harry Reid.

Some of what I have comes from my source.

Your source needs a nifty nom de guerre.

"Smiley"  or "Double-Oh Eight" or "Red Robin" or something.

First, she is a Republican and she was rumored to want to step down in 2000 but didn't feel it was prudent that close to the Bush v. Gore case.

Second, her husband is quite sick.  It seems she wants to stop working to spend time with him.

I would be surprised if she is still a Justice come this Fall.

That concept galls me.  And the White House better have a clue that such an idea remains totally unacceptable.  

We don't need ANY future Kennedys or O'Connors.  Why invite 25 more years of judicial indigestion??  We need true conservatives, period.  

Our goal must be at least 6 Scalia/Thomas types.  SIX.  No weak nominations until after proper judicial conduct is assured.

OK, maybe Gonzalez would be OK as Bush's 5th pick.  Maybe...  

"Karl Rove"

(in the line of "I am Tiger Woods")

I think that Justice Scalia would be a much better choice than Justice Thomas. The first African-American CJ would be a coupe for the Pres and hard for any Dem to not support.  It would terribly alienate an important part of their base!

But, Justice Scalia, in my opinion is the smartest of the Supreme Court Justices and is not afraid to remind liberals about some of the likely dangers off their winning opinions.  Look how prescient he's been following Lawrence et al. vs. Texas, with his warnings about gay marriages!  Scalia also did not have a difficult confirmation, having been unamiously approved by the full Senate after President Reagan nominated him.  

Even though the Dems dislike his opinions, it would be exceedingly difficult to say that he is not qualified to serve as Chief Justice, particularly when every Senator voted to support his move to the SC.

What ever happened to Judge Wilkinson???  I thought he'd be at least a top three prediction.

For a while, I had assumed Luttig would replace Rehnquist. But the White House's strategy with regard to the nuclear option made me think the choice would be McConnell or maybe Roberts-- someone not easily attacked by Democrats. But the White House may figure Luttig is more reliably conservative while also being difficult to stop in the Senate. It does look like he'll be the guy-- quite possibly CJ to avoid a battle over that position.

O'Connor is the tough one because if she retires, which I think she will this year, then the USSC is down to 1 woman, and that one is old and ill herself. Ultimately it will come down to Bush-- and he wants to nominate a hispanic. Beyond those two, I would be very, very hesitant to make any predictions. Yes, if the third vacancy occured shortly after the second Gonzales or a Senator might well get the nod. But if it's after the 2006 session, all bets are off and the process will be undertaken again.

Ideally for conservatives, Bush will get to replace all of the old guard on the Court... Stevens, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Rehnquist. Souter, Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas all appear a good ways from retiring. The older justices are split in partisan terms but are 3-1 in favor of Roe.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the significance of that. If, say, those four were replaced by Luttig, Garza, Clement, and McConnell, there would be a seismic shift in the Court. Democrats are right to be concerned, but it's unclear if they are smart enough to pick their battles properly.

He is just not reliably conservative enough for me.   I don't think he'd be another Souter, but he might be more along the lines of an O'Connor or Kennedy.  

His criticism of Luttig in the Babbit case scares me.

Wilkinson is over 60 years old.  The WH seems to be set on nominating justices who are under 60.

The biggest problem is that POTUS probably doesn't have any clue what Stevens or Ginsberg are doing.  If, for example, Bush decides to go with Garza as his Hispanic pick and replaces O'Connor with him, he basically has to keep the Ginsberg seat female.  That means no "consensus" pick like McConnell or Crapo or even Sen. Hatch, who would be easily confirmed due to the respect the other senators have for him.  It basically means POTUS would have to go with Clement for Ginsberg's seat, as he'd have no excuse not to, which means we'd see nuclear war in the Senate.

Not that I'm opposed to things nuclear, but it's probably not exactly what POTUS has in mind.

Then again, there's always the possibility of Justice Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

rant and rave and smear one of their own collegues.  Remember that Ashcroft was nominated for AG just what, a couple of months removed from being a Senator.  And they thoroughly Borked him, including that crap-for-brains woman that replaced him, and against whom he graciously refused any pursuit of post-election recounts, etc, in that scandal-ridden affair.

The comparison to Souter seems unfair.  Souter, like Harry Blackmun, has been a reliable conservative only on a few minor issues, and a reliable liberal and harsh critic of the court's conservatives on most others; you'd never know he was a GOP appointee.  I suspect Gonzales would be more on the lines of a moderate, tempermentally conservative, not-bound-by-principles Justice like O'Connor and Kennedy.  (Put in non-Court terms, more a McCain than a Jeffords.)

No Justice KBH.  No.

However you are right that if Ginsberg leaves and is the only female, the President will appoint a female.  And there seem to be few consensus females out there.  Owen, Brown, and Clement are going to spark a fight (for good or bad).

Right now I'd focus on the two openings.  Probability is that Ginsberg won't step down unless she has to for health reasons.  Thus, it is unlikely to be too soon.  If it is after the '06 elections, the whole dynamic may be different.

Didn't she used to be on all the short lists?  I may have missed why she's never mentioned anymore on these sorts of lists.

First post and love your blog.

However I am despondent at your source's change of tune. A few days ago it was 'Prayer answered: no more Souters', ie no Gonzales, and now - Gonzales is getting a nod, just not immediately. Gonzales is a guy who voted down parental notification for a child seeking an abortion. Why would POTUS give a guy like that a seat for life on the highest court in the States? It is a nightmare. It's like having Arlen Specter on the Court. And as recently as a day or so back your source was saying it wasn't going to happen.

would not work in the CJ's seat at all. Thomas would actually be an excellent choice. First off he's more consistent in his rulings, and secondly (for those concerned with partisan skirmishing) his confirmation hearing would put the Dems in an awkward spot (as noted) and also distract their ire before the confirmation hearings on the new justice.

consensus on the Court for overturning Roe would Gonzales make a difference to anyone? Even if he votes as one of the 4, a 5 to 4 vote is as effective as a 9-0 vote.

Hello Mr. Rove? Are you reading Redstate? Can you read our minds?

Let's repeat - every nominee (I hope they are 4 in total, but we can start with 1-2) must be a strict constructionist which reads the text and gives meaning to the original intent (Scalia and Thomas).

We support you, George Bush. And we will support your brother when he runs in 2012 (if democrats somehow win the white house in 2008) or in 2016.

Here is the story:

The President is upset about it, but realizes the reality of a Gonzales nomination and he will not make that play. That is not to say he won't in the future, but comtemplating either O'Connor or Rehnquist, Gonzales was asked to participate in compiling the list and he is not on it.

The rumblings from the base were too great. I am also told that, for the same reason, McConnell is now out. He would have been a perfect fit, but several of the movers and shakers have gotten cold feet about him.

(Emphasis mine)

I think he was pretty clear.

I'm skeptical that any of this has a basis inside the administration (No offense intended Erick). The Bush administration has been very closed mouth on about everything. When something big is in the works, they tend to cut the "need to know" team to a few very trusted individuals.

Now, a couple of parts are interesting. The timing of a Rehnquist could be with a number of people, inside and outside the administration. Also the timing of an O'Connor resignation could be known by a number of people.

However the pieces that would have to come from inside -- I'm not convinced. In an administration like the current leaking such stuff will get you put out in the cold. And they're the only ones that know who is being considered and in what order. The team that would know such things can probably be counted on one hand. And they haven't been known as leakers in the past.

More likely the sources are people either hoping that the names listed will be chosen, or hoping to kill the possibility of their name.

Scalia was unanimously approved because the "fight" was over Rehnquist's elevation.  They didn't spend a lot of time on Scalia.

Is pro-choice.  Not going to get the base to sign on to that choice.

I have a hard time seeing him as a leader.  Perhaps that's because he has been a junior justice for so long and has not had the opportunity to shape forceful opinions, nor gotten the recognition (because of the abrasiveness) that Scalia has shown.

I agree that Scalia is abrasive.  He's very in-your face, and that doesn't usually work well in building coalitions.  I guess my hope is that he could somehow tempere that bull-dog of a reputation.

Why do you want him to temper himself?  It's great that he is so direct about the inanity of the decisions that come off the pens of liberal justices these days.  I'd rather see him keep doing that then have to moderate himself because he's Chief.

I was acknowledging the importance of comments from other posters about differences in the role of a CJ and a J.  I think that Justice Scalia's sharp wit and incisive opinions make for very wonderful reading, and certainly enlivens the debate about national issues.

As a non-attorney, they are also easier for me to wade through than droll drafts written by some of the other justices who lack Justice Scalia's panache.

Source does tell me that POTUS[1] really, really, really wants Gonzales and "POTUS is POTUS" ...

1 Did people really start talking like that until the West Wing came on air? Or can we blame Mark Halperin?

I first saw heavy use of "POTUS" in John Podhoretz's 1993 book about the political meltdown of the Bush 41 administration, Hell of a Ride: Backstage at the White House Follies 1989-1993.  It sounded just as silly then, and the staffers' use of the term was part of the portrait of petty egos out of touch.

BTW, I think it was a great book, entertaining and informative.

Remember: it doesn't matter anymore what Reid thinks.  Whether any filibusters happen comes down to what the 14 'mavericks' think, Republican AND Democrat.  This includes those Democrats coming up for re-election in states Bush carried, and Republicans who want Bush's nominees to get passed.

And there's always the Byrd Maneuver (changing the rules) if that deal falls apart.  So it doesn't matter if Reid wants to obstruct or not.  I'm inclined to think that, if McCain wants to be President, he'd be inclined to fight for the rules change if a filibuster came, in order to TRY to get some support in the primaries.

"Let him try." -- Jesse Helms

Methinks if it is going to happen now, it will be either Thursday or Tuesday......W already knows.......he wants the retiree to be given his or her day of solo attention.....Monday did not work because of the final announcements of decisions....Tuesday and today did not work with the Iraq speech needing proper focus.....Therefore, Thursday looks just right.....or, Tuesday, July 5th.......if we reach midnight Tuesday, the 5th with no resignation, it will be awhile

Personal opinion.....Rehnquist has too much respect for the SCOTUS to allow his health to become a distraction and impede his own performance.......he would have resigned when he began the cancer fight, but it was in the middle of a Presidential Campaign and it is awkward to have a resignation in the midst of a term.....

Rehnquist is a common sense guy; he will retire now or allow his mortality to do it....maybe he knows something he is not sharing!

I do think it's a shame if McConnell gets passed over.  I've been a fan of his since reading his work on the Establishment Clause when I was in college 15 years ago.  He's a brilliant man and the most reliably pro-life of all the possible candidates.